9 ms·

Probably the most interesting thing from Apple today, in my opinion. The ability to buy short term plans from different providers effortlessly can turn my table

Probably the most interesting thing from Apple today, in my opinion. The ability to buy short term plans from different providers effortlessly can turn my tablet into a much more versatile device, and increase competition and reduce long-term carrier lock-in. It's pretty sweet and if it can set a standard for phones then we'll see carriers become true utilities between which customers can switch easily if they get poor service. In short, pretty awesome. Today's carrier system kind of feels like this dinosaur, like a landline... archaic and unnecessary. With so many people travelling, changing places, changing technology etc, it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments, and eventually, pay-per second of use on the fly, directly, without an account or monthly statement, with a push payment instead of a pull payment. (digital currencies being a key element here). Anyway, getting a bit too off-topic here, but cool first move by Apple for sure!

click170 12y ago
> it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments It makes sense for the consumer, but I don't think that's in the financial interest of the companies who have worked hard to make long-term service agreements for you phone something that is colloquially accepted in North America. I'm with you, I'd like to see the market change. Just.. don't hold your breath. I understnad Pay-As-You-Go is much bigger in the UK, I wonder if that's because the companies there never tried to push long-term agreements of if they've actually found PAYG more profitable.
- mikeash 12y ago
  T-Mobile has moved off long-term contracts almost entirely. AT&T is pushing their Next program hard, which decouples phone buying from the subscription (I believe you have to pay off the phone if you cancel, but the payments are separate and you don't lose out on a subsidy). Things seem to be moving pretty fast in that direction, and I'm hopeful.
  - jschwartzi 12y ago
    T-Mobile does something basically equivalent, where they give you a line item on your bill for the device payment plus a line item for your subscription. If this kind of card gets common I may have to buy one if I do any serious business travel again. It would be nice to never have to roam again, and instead simply make arrangements with a local carrier myself via the card.
    - pktgen 12y ago
      This is kind of unclear, but are you saying T-Mobile's model is equivalent to the traditional carrier subsidy model? It really isn't, precisely because of the separation you mention - you can choose not to buy a new phone and you won't pay for it every month. With the traditional subsidy model, since the subsidy is included in the base price, you're paying for the subsidy whether or not you're using it.
- soylentcola 12y ago
  I think the real issue is that US customers (at least) have been conditioned to think of a smart phone as something that costs between $0 and $300 due to the common use of contracts and subsidies. Even if a carrier offers a non-contract plan, they are often not that much better as far as price (with some exceptions like TMobile and some MVNOs), so they balk at paying $650-850 for a handset. That was one of the things I liked most about the Nexus 5 when it came out. Even unlocked you were getting a current gen phone, unlocked, worked with three major carriers and many MVNOs, and only cost $350. At that point, it's not as tough to make the jump and ditch the contract. Without the contract, you can just leave if a competitor offers a better deal or if your carrier screws you over. Even with this new SIM, I imagine you're still either gonna pay full price or you're gonna get it subsidized with a contract and then have the option of flipping over to some secondary plan when needed. Might be good for smaller carriers with good rates but less coverage. Phone works great at home but drops off when you go to another town? Just flip to a prepaid SIM from a cheap prepaid carrier with service in the area.
  - Igglyboo 12y ago
    Yep, no one is going to want to pay $600+ for a phone(in the US). TBH, over $200 for a phone on contract is really high as well.
    - rconti 12y ago
      shrug Just paid $750 for an iPhone 6, unlocked. The alternative was renting it from my carrier for a similar amount, divided into 24 months, and being handcuffed to them for unlocks and the like. By using BYOD pricing on my ATT plan, I pay less every month than I would on a subsidy. Yeah, I'm not everyone, but arguing that "most people" won't do what I did is kind of missing the point-- they already DO pay that much, just not all at once. It's kind of crazier when you realize what people are paying without knowing it. The subsidies are going away -- ATT and Verizon in the US are forcing people into their monthly payment plans -- which is kind of nice, because people actually see what they're paying instead of just seeing it "bundled".
      - 12y ago
- justincormack 12y ago
  PAYG and contract both exist in the uk. Initially you had to be able to get credit to get a contract, so eg kids got PAYG. The carriers preferred contracts as it was guaranteed income. Its a bit more flexible now, people choose what they want.
- spiralpolitik 12y ago
  Originally in the UK market contracts were the norm. Then Pay-As-You-Go opened the cellphone market up to teenagers, people on a limited budget, and people who used cellphones infrequently. That combined with the release of the Nokia 5150 and Nokia 3310 phones drove the market away from contracts. Plus in the UK the regulator is much more active in promoting competition (VNOs, Number Portability, tariff changes are all things the regulator has done to promote competition). In the US the regulator couldn't care less.
  - lanaius 12y ago
    The first successful MVNO in the US came only 3 years after the first successful MVNO in the UK and mobile number portability was put into law in 2003 for both the US and the UK. The additional benefit is that because mobile numbers and wired numbers share the same area code base in the US, US number portability is basically universal. I don't see the basis based upon your listed criteria for saying that the FCC cares any less or that Ofcom cares any more about promoting competition.
    - Ntrails 12y ago
      Slightly unrelated but I find the idea of a mobile phone sharing an area code with landlines utterly bewildering. A phone, that by definition has no fixed abode, is now tied to a location and subject to long distance charges based on that location (As it was explained to me in Canada at least).
      - lanaius 12y ago
        In a time when mobile phones were scarce, putting them on a local area code ensures that a large portion of their usage (calling to and from landlines within a geographic space that actually IS limited) doesn't require additional long distance charges for everyone. These days it may seem like a quirk, but really what 20-year-old technology decision doesn't?
MichaelGG 12y ago
Is this an Apple thing? People like (first hit on Google) http://www.bluefish.com/dual-multi-imsi,221.html http://www.bluefish.com/dual-multi-imsi,221.html don't offer the same thing already?
- scholia 12y ago
  There's nothing new about "soft" SIM cards. The problem has been that carriers like them locked to their own services. (This is true in Europe and I assume in the US also...)
jrochkind1 12y ago
AT&T, unless they've taken it away again yet, offers an iPad plan that's $25 for 1G or 3 months whichever comes first. Which is kind of sort of a short term plan.
- mikinner 12y ago
  I am surprised Sprint is on board, they have always been difficult to work with in the past.
oDot 12y ago
I'm actually with the subscription model, it gives you peace of mind. The thing is it's done bad in the US. Here in Israel there was a big carrier "revolution" and now you can get a subscription for about $25 a month that gives you 6gb of surfing (then it slows you down), unlimited calls & text and access to this plan in several countries such as the UK and France, with more coming. For other countries it just costs something like 10 cents a minute for an outgoing call. This way I only pay a fixed amount of money a month and spare the flux.
Steko 12y ago
A nice side effect should (eventually) be tolerable Internet prices when roaming.
ejz 12y ago
I definitely agree with this. It represents an interesting power shift; before the core technology was your SIM, and your phone shifted around your carrier. Apple kind of wants to change this by making it so that the iPhone is at the center, with the carrier being subservient to the consumers' whims. I would think this is a step too far for most carriers, but then again, Apple got carriers to agree to it...
7952 12y ago
In a truly competitive system there would be no need to ever conciously think about the carrier you were using. Your data would just be routed securely using the best means available and people would compete to be the best connection. Instead we have an absurd situation where carriers want to prevent customers using their product!
- mmphosis 12y ago
  In a truly non-competitive system, we might be more conscious and more connected. Our internet connections might be routed using free high-speed publicly available internet and people would complain. Instead we have an absurd situation where a cartel of so-called "carriers" charge paying customers a toll for using the internet!
  - 7952 12y ago
    The end result of such a system would probably be to charge websites for last mile bandwidth instead of users. In a system with thousands of small ISPs that could actually work well to fund bandwidth expansion. Of course at that point everything would move to P2P and the system would break again.
- TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
  "Securely." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  - 7952 12y ago
    I used that word because I assumed that someone would complain that my suggestion is insecure. Of course the internet is entirely built around sending data publically across networks that you cannot trust. If you are building a new system to route data intelligently from the first hop it would make sense to include an encryption standard to make it less bad than the status quo. Having different classes of trusted networks just encourages a false sense of safety.

click170 12y ago

> it makes a lot of sense to move from subscriptions to short-time payments It makes sense for the consumer, but I don't think that's in the financial interest of the companies who have worked hard to make long-term service agreements for you phone something that is colloquially accepted in North America. I'm with you, I'd like to see the market change. Just.. don't hold your breath. I understnad Pay-As-You-Go is much bigger in the UK, I wonder if that's because the companies there never tried to push long-term agreements of if they've actually found PAYG more profitable.

mikeash 12y ago
T-Mobile has moved off long-term contracts almost entirely. AT&T is pushing their Next program hard, which decouples phone buying from the subscription (I believe you have to pay off the phone if you cancel, but the payments are separate and you don't lose out on a subsidy). Things seem to be moving pretty fast in that direction, and I'm hopeful.
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  T-Mobile does something basically equivalent, where they give you a line item on your bill for the device payment plus a line item for your subscription. If this kind of card gets common I may have to buy one if I do any serious business travel again. It would be nice to never have to roam again, and instead simply make arrangements with a local carrier myself via the card.
  - pktgen 12y ago
    This is kind of unclear, but are you saying T-Mobile's model is equivalent to the traditional carrier subsidy model? It really isn't, precisely because of the separation you mention - you can choose not to buy a new phone and you won't pay for it every month. With the traditional subsidy model, since the subsidy is included in the base price, you're paying for the subsidy whether or not you're using it.
soylentcola 12y ago
I think the real issue is that US customers (at least) have been conditioned to think of a smart phone as something that costs between $0 and $300 due to the common use of contracts and subsidies. Even if a carrier offers a non-contract plan, they are often not that much better as far as price (with some exceptions like TMobile and some MVNOs), so they balk at paying $650-850 for a handset. That was one of the things I liked most about the Nexus 5 when it came out. Even unlocked you were getting a current gen phone, unlocked, worked with three major carriers and many MVNOs, and only cost $350. At that point, it's not as tough to make the jump and ditch the contract. Without the contract, you can just leave if a competitor offers a better deal or if your carrier screws you over. Even with this new SIM, I imagine you're still either gonna pay full price or you're gonna get it subsidized with a contract and then have the option of flipping over to some secondary plan when needed. Might be good for smaller carriers with good rates but less coverage. Phone works great at home but drops off when you go to another town? Just flip to a prepaid SIM from a cheap prepaid carrier with service in the area.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Yep, no one is going to want to pay $600+ for a phone(in the US). TBH, over $200 for a phone on contract is really high as well.
  - rconti 12y ago
    shrug Just paid $750 for an iPhone 6, unlocked. The alternative was renting it from my carrier for a similar amount, divided into 24 months, and being handcuffed to them for unlocks and the like. By using BYOD pricing on my ATT plan, I pay less every month than I would on a subsidy. Yeah, I'm not everyone, but arguing that "most people" won't do what I did is kind of missing the point-- they already DO pay that much, just not all at once. It's kind of crazier when you realize what people are paying without knowing it. The subsidies are going away -- ATT and Verizon in the US are forcing people into their monthly payment plans -- which is kind of nice, because people actually see what they're paying instead of just seeing it "bundled".
    - 12y ago
justincormack 12y ago
PAYG and contract both exist in the uk. Initially you had to be able to get credit to get a contract, so eg kids got PAYG. The carriers preferred contracts as it was guaranteed income. Its a bit more flexible now, people choose what they want.
spiralpolitik 12y ago
Originally in the UK market contracts were the norm. Then Pay-As-You-Go opened the cellphone market up to teenagers, people on a limited budget, and people who used cellphones infrequently. That combined with the release of the Nokia 5150 and Nokia 3310 phones drove the market away from contracts. Plus in the UK the regulator is much more active in promoting competition (VNOs, Number Portability, tariff changes are all things the regulator has done to promote competition). In the US the regulator couldn't care less.
- lanaius 12y ago
  The first successful MVNO in the US came only 3 years after the first successful MVNO in the UK and mobile number portability was put into law in 2003 for both the US and the UK. The additional benefit is that because mobile numbers and wired numbers share the same area code base in the US, US number portability is basically universal. I don't see the basis based upon your listed criteria for saying that the FCC cares any less or that Ofcom cares any more about promoting competition.
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    Slightly unrelated but I find the idea of a mobile phone sharing an area code with landlines utterly bewildering. A phone, that by definition has no fixed abode, is now tied to a location and subject to long distance charges based on that location (As it was explained to me in Canada at least).
    - lanaius 12y ago
      In a time when mobile phones were scarce, putting them on a local area code ensures that a large portion of their usage (calling to and from landlines within a geographic space that actually IS limited) doesn't require additional long distance charges for everyone. These days it may seem like a quirk, but really what 20-year-old technology decision doesn't?

MichaelGG 12y ago

Is this an Apple thing? People like (first hit on Google) http://www.bluefish.com/dual-multi-imsi,221.html http://www.bluefish.com/dual-multi-imsi,221.html don't offer the same thing already?

scholia 12y ago
There's nothing new about "soft" SIM cards. The problem has been that carriers like them locked to their own services. (This is true in Europe and I assume in the US also...)

jrochkind1 12y ago

AT&T, unless they've taken it away again yet, offers an iPad plan that's $25 for 1G or 3 months whichever comes first. Which is kind of sort of a short term plan.

mikinner 12y ago
I am surprised Sprint is on board, they have always been difficult to work with in the past.

oDot 12y ago

I'm actually with the subscription model, it gives you peace of mind. The thing is it's done bad in the US. Here in Israel there was a big carrier "revolution" and now you can get a subscription for about $25 a month that gives you 6gb of surfing (then it slows you down), unlimited calls & text and access to this plan in several countries such as the UK and France, with more coming. For other countries it just costs something like 10 cents a minute for an outgoing call. This way I only pay a fixed amount of money a month and spare the flux.

Steko 12y ago

A nice side effect should (eventually) be tolerable Internet prices when roaming.

ejz 12y ago

I definitely agree with this. It represents an interesting power shift; before the core technology was your SIM, and your phone shifted around your carrier. Apple kind of wants to change this by making it so that the iPhone is at the center, with the carrier being subservient to the consumers' whims. I would think this is a step too far for most carriers, but then again, Apple got carriers to agree to it...

7952 12y ago

In a truly competitive system there would be no need to ever conciously think about the carrier you were using. Your data would just be routed securely using the best means available and people would compete to be the best connection. Instead we have an absurd situation where carriers want to prevent customers using their product!

mmphosis 12y ago
In a truly non-competitive system, we might be more conscious and more connected. Our internet connections might be routed using free high-speed publicly available internet and people would complain. Instead we have an absurd situation where a cartel of so-called "carriers" charge paying customers a toll for using the internet!
- 7952 12y ago
  The end result of such a system would probably be to charge websites for last mile bandwidth instead of users. In a system with thousands of small ISPs that could actually work well to fund bandwidth expansion. Of course at that point everything would move to P2P and the system would break again.
TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
"Securely." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- 7952 12y ago
  I used that word because I assumed that someone would complain that my suggestion is insecure. Of course the internet is entirely built around sending data publically across networks that you cannot trust. If you are building a new system to route data intelligently from the first hop it would make sense to include an encryption standard to make it less bad than the status quo. Having different classes of trusted networks just encourages a false sense of safety.